RE: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel funding and policy

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Avri.

If we use the constituency as the basic unit of funding apportionment,
would it then be the Council's role to decide how to do that fairly?
That sounds like a huge challenge to me.  What does it mean to treat
constituencies equitably?  Does every constituency get treated the same
way in apportioning funds regardless of their size or representativeness
or activity?

What if there are a small number of constituencies in one House and a
large number of constituencies in the other house? Is it your opinion
that the travel funds should be distributed equally among constituencies
so that one House would receive a lot more funding?

In the case of the Travel DT recommendations for which I provided some
suggested edits, the intent as I read it was to request funding that
would at least cover costs for all Councilors if constituencies decided
to use it for Councilors.  Councilors are selected at the SG level and
may or may not correlate with constituencies, so I don't see how it
would work.

Finally, in my opinion I think these issues are best handled by each SG
rather than by the Council or present constituencies.

Thanks for the dialog.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 12:23 PM
> To: GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel 
> funding and policy
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> I apologize for not being clear.
> 
> The point I agree with, assuming I do not misunderstand the 
> point that was being made, is that as long as we are 
> responding to an ICANN policy that forces discrimination 
> through an unnecessary shortage in travel funding, and as 
> long as we are saying that groups can send anyone they want 
> and not just council members, then the basic unit of funding 
> apportionment must be the constituency.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 12:10 -0400, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > Avri,
> > 
> > Please explain to me what you agree with.  I didn't understand 
> > Philip's point so I obviously do not understand yours.  
> Please note my 
> > responses below.
> > 
> > Chuck
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > > Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 11:53 AM
> > > To: 'GNSO Council'
> > > Subject: RE: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO 
> travel funding 
> > > and policy
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I would tend to agree with this.  
> > > 
> > > Constituencies are, as I understand them within the new 
> structure, 
> > > the basic way participants engaged in policy making are 
> organized.  
> > > It is being a constituency that gives an organized group 
> of people 
> > > with a common interest a formal voice in policy making.
> > 
> > No disagreement here.  Constituences are by definition 
> components of 
> > SGs so they are included.
> >   
> > > 
> > > The Stakeholder groups based on the other hand are based on an 
> > > sector organizational principle for allowing the 
> constituencies from 
> > > one of 4 sectors to manage the process and provide a mechanism to 
> > > allow for the formation of new constituencies without having to 
> > > constantly change the balance of representation/votes in the 
> > > council.  Since SG are organized along sector lines, it is quite 
> > > possible for constituencies within a sector to be 
> unaligned and in 
> > > disagreement with each other.
> > 
> > So what?  That is the case now.  We regularly have 
> disagreement in the 
> > Council and we regularly have disagreement within our 
> constituencies.
> > That is why work toward consensus or at least rough consensus.  
> > 
> > > 
> > > As long as we are working on a model of funding where the 
> > > participants within a group are forced to discriminate on 
> how that 
> > > money will be spent, then that basic grouping has to be the 
> > > constituency.  Otherwise a strong constituency within a SG could 
> > > refuse to allow a weaker constituency to travel thus 
> stifling their 
> > > legitimate Board given voice.
> > 
> > SG charters should be disigned to deal with this.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Note: In saying this I repeat my minority opinion again 
> that ICANN 
> > > should be providing travel on the Board level standards for all 
> > > council members.  But this is not the position taken by the DT or 
> > > council, so it remains a minority view.  In the spirit of 
> announcing 
> > > how we intend to vote in advance, I will probably abstain since I 
> > > strongly believe this and am currently the only council 
> member, by 
> > > virtue of being chair, being given what I consider the proper 
> > > treatment all council members should be given.  I think 
> this will be 
> > > even more the case when we move to the SG model as then 
> the council 
> > > reps will be chosen to serve the will of the SG  and not 
> interests 
> > > of their constituency.
> > > 
> > > a.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 16:12 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> > > > The BC profoundly objects to the proposed change of 
> "constituencies"
> > > > to "stakeholder groups" suggested by the RyC.
> > > >  
> > > > Any new constituency must be approved by the Board.
> > > > It is therefore legitimate.
> > > > It therefore deserves equitable treatment.
> > > >  
> > > > Philip
> > > >  
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
>